Well-Known Member

You have to wonder about this Strzok person, what kind of an arrogant ass he is to be sassing a United States Congressman during a hearing where he is being questioned about his unethical and perhaps illegal behavior.

Because it is straight out of the Democrat playbook - when they have you dead to rights, show indignance. It somehow works with adults.
I say that because if I catch my kids doing something they absolutely should never be doing, I'm not going to listen to their crap about how I went into their room
or how dare I question the integrity of a child who lies pretty much every time they're caught.

Two things surprise me - one is - the revelation of any kind of personal bias would - were this voir dire in a courtroom - result in immediate rejection from a jury.
That sort of thing if it came up would totally convince any attorney that the potential juror is far too biased to make an objective decision.

The other is, that his bias was known - but it apparently was never brought up either when he was brought on to the investigation - or when he was dismissed.

I was at work, so I didn't watch the whole thing . I only saw snippets last night. Do we know if the ones who were clutching their pearls the most and speaking sternly in their faux outrage are the ones who are not up for re-election?

Well-Known Member

I was at work, so I didn't watch the whole thing . I only saw snippets last night. Do we know if the ones who were clutching their pearls the most and speaking sternly in their faux outrage are the ones who are not up for re-election?

It was the House - 100% are up for re-election. Historically, I think it is in the 90% range for those who seek re-election to be re-elected, thanks to gerrymandering and the political parties controlling who runs where.

Well-Known Member

Two things surprise me - one is - the revelation of any kind of personal bias would - were this voir dire in a courtroom - result in immediate rejection from a jury.
That sort of thing if it came up would totally convince any attorney that the potential juror is far too biased to make an objective decision.

The only thing we can do is try to connect the dots. Hillary was about as guilty as it gets. I've stated it numerous times... I've been working in and around classified environments for decades. I know how this stuff works with handling classified. Her mishandling of classified would have put any other ordinary person in prison for a long time. This leads to the bias and Comey's dismissal of any recommendation of indictment. What role did Strzok play in this decision? His text messages were clear that he had INTENT to stop Trump. The only way he could do this was to use his power and influence in the FBI. Yet, he managed to justify why he wrote these texts. His claim that there was no bias is just blatantly false. Everyone has bias. Not everyone acts on that bias. When I connect the dots between his text messages to Comey exonerating Hillary, it becomes clear to me that he acted on that bias. The problem is, there really is nothing to actually prove that's how it happened. This is the FBI. They know how to cover things up.

If anyone has any faith in our FBI at this point - at least at the highest levels - I'd like to know why. Like the IRS, they became a political tool to go after political enemies. It's really disgraceful.

I watched enough of it yesterday to be convinced of two things... The Democrats will interrupt all testimony, questions or statements that are damning, and that the traitorous POS will get away with it completely.

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga

It was the House - 100% are up for re-election. Historically, I think it is in the 90% range for those who seek re-election to be re-elected, thanks to gerrymandering and the political parties controlling who runs where.

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga

It did bring out the screams - which was funnier really than Gohmert's comments. Yes, "they got out of hand", if you will (hell, nothing like Parliament!!)- but the whole thing is ridiculous and should never have even been necessary.

Pixelated

I was at work, so I didn't watch the whole thing . I only saw snippets last night. Do we know if the ones who were clutching their pearls the most and speaking sternly in their faux outrage are the ones who are not up for re-election?

Pixelated

I heard that. I thought that was pretty out of line. Stick with the facts that you know. Don't start getting personal at that level. I think Gohmert kind of regrets that part of this questioning. And he should.

Well-Known Member

I heard that. I thought that was pretty out of line. Stick with the facts that you know. Don't start getting personal at that level. I think Gohmert kind of regrets that part of this questioning. And he should.

Just being a fly in the ointment...

I heard that. I thought that was pretty out of line. Stick with the facts that you know. Don't start getting personal at that level. I think Gohmert kind of regrets that part of this questioning. And he should.